从国际法看中美撞机事件

秦旭东


2001年4月1日，美国一架EP-3军用侦察机在中国东南近海海域（位于中国经济专属区内）上
空进行侦察飞行，中国两架军用飞机随即起飞对美机活动进行跟踪和监视。飞行中，美机同中
方一架飞机相撞，中方飞机坠毁，飞行员身亡。撞击事件在中美两国之间引起了一场外交争端
，在中国国内乃至国际社会引起巨大反响。本文将将从国际法的角度，对这一事件进行分析，
谈谈自己的一些粗浅看法。

一

美机的飞行位于中国海南岛东南104四公里左右处的近海上空，根据1982年《联合国海洋法公
约》的规定，该空域属于专属经济区上覆空域。中国已经签署该公约，并进行了相关的国内立
法[#1#1996年5月第八届全国人民代表大会常务委员会第十九次会议批准了《联合国海洋法公
约》，第九届全国人民代表大会常务委员会第三次会议于１９９８年６月２６日通过《中华人
民共和国专属经济区和大陆架法》]，因此，美机实际上是在中国专属经济区上覆空域飞行。
当然，这里需要说明的是，虽然《联合国海洋法公约》已经为世界上大多数国家所接受［＃２
＃至＊年世界上已经有＊个国家加入了该公约］，在国际上具有重大而深远的影响，但是时至
今日美国尚未加入该公约。对此，是否可以认为美国不受该公约约束、不承认中国对其专属经
济区的权利呢？一般来说，作为国际法渊源之一的条约只对缔约当事国产生效力，但这不是绝
对的，在某些情况下条约对第三国以产生法律效果。一是条约的规定形成了国际习惯法规则［
＃３＃在这种情况下，实际上应当认为第三国的权利义务的根据是国际习惯法而不是条约］，
二是条约为第三国规定了权利或义务，经第三国书面明示接受或者默示接受（设定义务须经书
面明示接受），三是《联合国宪章》第二条第（６）款之规定通常被理解为对非联合国会员国
也有效。［４参见《国际法》，王铁崖主编，法律出版社，１９９５年版，Ｐ４２８］根据１
９６９年《维也纳条约法公约》第三十五、三十六条之规定，条约为第三国规定权利的经同意
或推定同意的，第三国如依此行使权利则应当遵守条约所规定或者依照条约所确定之条件行使
该权利［５参见《国际法资料选编》，王铁崖、田如萱编，法律出版社，１９８６年版］。美
国虽然未加入《联合国海洋法公约》，也未以书面形式表示接受该公约设定的义务，但至少可
以认为其已接受了该公约设定的权利。如果有任何一个国家在美国的“专属经济区”内攫取经
济利益，肯定不会为美国所容忍。既然已经依该公约行使了权利，就应当遵守该公约的规定，
承认他国同等的权利。更为重要的是，国际海洋法中有关大陆架、专属经济区等的规则和制度
“由于许多国家相继迅速采取类似行动，等到普遍的承认，”已经“成了国际习惯法原则、规
则和制度”。[6参见《国际法》，王铁崖主编，法律出版社，1995年版， P14]因此，《联合
国海洋法公约》的相关规定对美国是具有法律效力的，美国不能否认中国对其专属经济区的权
利。

事实上，美国也并未这样做。他们认为根据国际习惯法和《联合国海洋法公约》，美机在公
海及排他性经济水域的上覆空域享有飞越自由。《联合国海洋法公约》第八十七条规定了公海
自由，“公海对所有国家开放”，公海自由包括航行自由、飞越自由等；第五十八条规定了其
他国家在专属经济区内的权利，“在专属经济区内，所有国家，……享有第八十七条所指的航
行和飞越的自由……”[7参见《国际法资料选编》]，王铁崖、田如萱编，法律出版社，１９
８６年版]但是，中国方面认为，“虽然所有国家在他国专属经济区上空都享有飞越自由，但
这项自由绝不是无限制的，各国在行使这项飞越自由时要受到国际法有关规定的约束。”[８
参见《从国际法的角度透视中美撞机事件》，李秦，《人民日报》２００１年４月１６日第四
版] 《联合国海洋法公约》第五十八条规定，“在专属经济区内，所有国家，……在本公约有
关规定的限制下，享有第八十七条所指的航行和飞越的自由，”“各国在专属经济区内根据本
公约行使其权利和履行其义务，应适当顾及沿海国的权利和义务，并应遵守沿海国按本公约的
Hong Kong


CONTROL OF EXEMPTION CLAUSES ORDINANCE
　(CHAPTER 71)
　CONTENTS
　　
　　ion
　　I　　　　PRELIMINARY
　　hort title
　　nterpretation and application
　　he "reasonableness" test
　　Dealing as consumer"
　　arieties of exemption clause
　　ower to amend Schedules 1 and 2
　　II　　　　CONTROL OF EXEMPTION CLAUSES
　　dance of liability for negligence, breach of contract, etc.
　　egligence liability
　　iability arising in contract
　　nreasonable indemnity clauses Liability arising from sale or
supply of
　　s
　　"Guarantee" of consumer goods
　　Seller's liability
　　Miscellaneous contracts under which goods pass Other provisions
about
　　racts
　　Effect of breach on "reasonableness" test
　　Evasion by means of secondary contract
　　Arbitration agreements
　　III　　　CIRCUMSTANCES WHERE CONTROL DOES NOT APPLY
　　International supply contracts
　　Choice of law clauses
　　Saving for other relevant legislation
　　Application
　　IV　　　 CONSEQUENTIAL AND OTHER AMENDMENTS
　　(Omitted)
　　dule 1. Scope of sections 7, 8, 9 and 12
　　dule 2. "Guidelines" for application of reasonableness test
　　dule 3. (Omitted)
　Whole document
　　
　　imit the extent to which civil liability for breach　of　contract,　
or
　　negligence or other breach　of　duty,　can　be　avoided　by　
means　of
　　ract terms and　otherwise;　and　to　restrict　the　
enforceability　of
　　tration agreements.　[1 December 1990] L. N. 38 of 1990
　PART I PRELIMINARY
　　
　　hort title
　　Ordinance may be cited as the Control of Exemption Clauses
Ordinance.
　　nterpretation and application
　　In this Ordinance--
　　iness" includes a profession and the activities of a　public　
body,　a
　　ic　authority,　or　a　board,　commission,　committee　or　
other　body
　　inted by the Governor or Government;
　　ds" has the same meaning as in the Sale of Goods Ordinance (Cap.
26);
　　ligence" means the breach--
　　of any obligation, arising from the express　or　implied　terms　
of　a
　　ract, to take reasonable care or　exercise　reasonable　skill　
in　the
　　ormance of the contract;
　　of any common law duty to take reasonable care or exercise　
reasonable
　　l (but not any stricter duty);
　　of the　common　duty　of　care　imposed　by　the　Occupiers　
Liability
　　nance (Cap. 314); "notice" includes an announcement, whether or
not in
　　hing, and any other communication or pretended communication;
　　sonal injury" includes any disease and any impairment of　
physical　or
　　al condition.
　　In the case of both contract and tort, sections 7 to 12 apply　
(except
　　e the　contrary　is　stated　in　section　11　(4))　only　to　
business
　　ility, that is liability for breach of obligations or duties
arising--
　　from things done or omitted to be done by a person in the course
of　a
　　ness (whether his own business or another's); or
　　from the occupation of premises used　for　business　purposes　
of　the
　　pier, and references to liability are　to　be　read　
accordingly;　but
　　ility of an occupier of premises for breach of an obligation　or　
duty
　　rds a person obtaining access to　the　premises　for　
recreational　or
　　ational purposes, being liability　for　loss　or　damage　
suffered　by
　　on of the dangerous state of the premises, is not a business
liability
　　he occupier unless granting that person such access for　the　
purposes
　　erned falls within the business purposes of the occupier.
　　In relation to any breach of duty　or　obligation,　it　is　
immaterial
　　her the breach was inadvertent or intentional,　or　whether　
liability
　　it arises directly or vicariously.
　　1977 c. 50 ss. 1&14 U. K.]
　　he "reasonableness" test
　　In relation to a contract term, the requirement of reasonableness　
for
　　purposes of this Ordinance and　section　4　of　the　
Misrepresentation
　　nance (Cap.　284)　is　satisfied　only　if　the　court　or　
arbitrator
　　rmines that the term was a fair and　reasonable　one　to　be　
included
　　ng regard to the circumstances which were, or ought reasonably
to have
　　, known to or in the contemplation of the parties　when　the　
contract
　　made.
　　In determining for the purposes of section 11 or 12 whether a
contract
　　satisfies the requirement of reasonableness, the court or　
arbitrator
　　l have regard in particular to the matters specified　in　
Schedule　2;
　　this subsection does not prevent the court or arbitrator from
holding,
　　ccordance with any rule of law, that a term which purports to　
exclude
　　estrict any relevant liability is not a term of the contract.
　　
　　In relation to　a　notice　(not　being　a　notice　having　
contractual
　　ct),　the　requirement　of　reasonableness　under　this　
Ordinance　is
　　sfied only if the court or arbitrator determines that it would
be fair
　　reasonable　to　allow　reliance　on　it,　having　regard　to　
all　the
　　umstances obtaining when the liability arose or (but for　the　
notice)
　　d have arisen.
　　In　determining　(under　this　Ordinance　or　the　
Misrepresentation
　　nance (Cap. 284)) whether a contract　term　or　notice　
satisfies　the
　　irement of reasonableness, the court or arbitrator shall　have　
regard
　　articular (but without prejudice to subsection (2) to whether
(and, if
　　to what extent) the language in which the term or notice is　
expressed
　　language understood by the person　as　against　whom　another　
person
　　s to rely upon the term or notice.
　　Where by reference to a contract term or　notice　a　person　
seeks　to
　　rict liability to a specified sum of money, and the question
arises
　　er this Ordinance　or　the　Misrepresentation　Ordinance　(Cap.　
284))
　　her the term or notice satisfies the　requirement　of　
reasonableness,
　　court or arbitrator shall　have　regard　in　particular　(but　
without
　　udice to subsection (2) or (4)) to--
　　the resources which he could expect to be available　to　him　for　
the
　　ose of meeting the liability should it arise; and
　　how far it was open to him to cover himself by insurance.
　　It is for the person claiming that a contract term or notice
satisfies
　　requirement of reasonableness to prove that it does.
　　1977 c. 50 s. 11 U. K.]
　　Dealing as consumer"
　　A party to a contract "deals as consumer" in relation to another
party
　　
　　he neither makes the contract in the course of a　business　nor　
holds
　　elf out as doing so;
　　the other party does make the contract in the course　of　a　
business;
　　
　　in the case of a contract governed by the law of sale of goods　
or　by
　　ion 12, the goods passing under or in pursuance of the contract
are of
　　pe ordinarily supplied for private use or consumption.
　　Notwithstanding subsection (1), on a sale by auction or by
competitive
　　er the buyer is not in any circumstances to be regarded as dealing　
as
　　umer.
　　It is for the person claiming that a party does not deal　as　
consumer
　　rove that he does not.
　　1977 c. 50 s. 12 U. K.]
　　
　　arieties of exemption clause
　　To　the　extent　that　this　Ordinance　prevents　the　
exclusion　 or
　　riction of any liability it also prevents--
　　making the liability or its　enforcement　subject　to　
restrictive　or
　　ous conditions;
　　excluding or restricting　any　right　or　remedy　in　respect　
of　the
　　ility, or subjecting a person to any prejudice in consequence　of　
his
　　uing any such right or remedy;
　　excluding or restricting rules of evidence or procedure, and (to　
that
　　nt) sections 7, 10, 11 and 12 also prevent　excluding　or　
restricting
　　ility by reference to terms and notices which　 exclude　 or　
restrict
　　relevant obligation or duty.
　　An agreement in writing to submit present　or　future　
differences　to
　　tration is not to be treated under　this　Ordinance　as　
excluding　or
　　ricting any liability.　[cf. 1977 c. 50 s. 13 U. K.]
　　ower to amend Schedules 1 and 2
　　Legislative Council may by resolution amend Schedules 1 and 2.
　PART II CONTROL OF EXEMPTION CLAUSES
　　
　　dance of liability for negligence, breach of contract, etc.
　　egligence liability
　　A person cannot by reference to any contract term or to a notice
given
　　ersons generally or to particular　persons　exclude　or　
restrict　his
　　ility for death or personal injury resulting from negligence.
　　In the case of other loss or damage, a person　cannot　so　
exclude　or
　　rict his liability for negligence except in so　far　as　the　
term　or
　　ce satisfies the requirement of reasonableness.
　　Where a contract term　or　notice　purports　to　exclude　or　
restrict
　　ility for negligence a person's agreement to or awareness of it
is not
　　tself to be taken as indicating his voluntary acceptance of any
risk.
　　1977 c. 50 s. 2 U. K.]
　　iability arising in contract
　　This section applies as between contracting parties where one of　
them
　　s as consumer or on the other's written standard terms of
business.
　　As against that party, the other cannot by reference to　any　
contract
　　--
　　When himself in breach of contract, exclude or restrict any　
liability
　　is in respect of the breach; or
　　claim to be entitled--
　　to render a contractual performance substantially different from　
that
　　h was reasonably expected of him; or
　　in respect of the whole or any part of his contractual obligation,
to
　　er no performance at all,
　　pt in so far　as　(in　any　of　the　cases　mentioned　above　
in　this
　　ection) the contract term satisfies the requirement of
reasonableness.
　　1977 c. 50 s. 3 U. K.]
　　nreasonable indemnity clauses
　　A person dealing as consumer cannot by reference to any contract　
term
　　ade to indemnify another person (whether a party to　the　
contract　or
　　in respect of liability　that　may　be　incurred　by　the　
other　for
　　igence or breach of contract, except in so far as　the　contract　
term
　　sfies the requirement of reasonableness.
　　This section applies whether the liability in question--
　　is directly that of the person to be indemnified or is incurred
by him
　　riously;
　　is to the person dealing as consumer or to someone else. [cf. 1977　
c.
　　. 4 U. K.]
　　ility arising from sale or supply of goods
　　
　　"Guarantee" of consumer goods
　　In the case of goods of a type ordinarily supplied for private
use　or
　　umption, where loss or damage--
　　arises from the goods proving defective while in consumer use;
and
　　results from the negligence of a person concerned in　the　
manufacture
　　istribution of the goods, liability for the loss or damage　
cannot　be
　　uded or restricted　by　reference　to　any　contract　term　or　
notice
　　ained in or operating by reference to a guarantee of the goods.
　　For these purposes--
　　goods are to be regarded as "in consumer use" when a person　is　
using
　　, or has them in his possession for use,　otherwise　than　
exclusively
　　the purposes of a business; and
　　anything in writing is a guarantee　if　it　contains　or　
purports　to
　　ain some promise or　assurance　(however　worded　or　
presented)　that
　　cts will be made good　by　complete　or　partial　replacement,　
or　by
　　ir, monetary compensation or otherwise.
　　This section does not apply as between the parties to a contract
under
　　n pursuance of which possession or ownership of the goods passed.
　　1977 c. 50 s. 5 U. K.]
　　Seller's liability
　　Liability for breach of the obligations arising from section 14
of the
　　of Goods Ordinance (Cap. 26) (seller's　implied　undertakings　
as　to
　　e, etc.) cannot be excluded or restricted by reference to any
contract
　　.
　　As against a person dealing as consumer, liability for breach　of　
the
　　gations arising from section 15,　16　or　17　of　the　Sale　of　
Goods
　　nance (Cap. 26) (seller's implied undertakings　as　to　
conformity　of
　　s with description or sample, or as to their quality or fitness
for　a
　　icular purpose) cannot be excluded or restricted by reference　to　
any
　　ract term.
　　As against a person dealing otherwise than as consumer, the　
liability
　　ified in subsection (2) can be excluded or restricted by reference　
to
　　ntract term, but only in so far as the term satisfies the　
requirement
　　easonableness.
　　The liabilities referred to in this section are not only the　
business
　　ilities defined by section 2 (2), but include those arising under　
any
　　ract of sale of goods.　[cf. 1977 c. 50 s. 6 U. K.]
　　Miscellaneous contracts under which goods pass
　　Where the　possession　or　ownership　of　goods　passes　
under　or　in
　　uance of a contract　not　governed　by　the　law　of　sale　of　
goods,
　　ection (2) to (4) apply in relation to the effect (if　any)　that　
the
　　t or arbitrator is to give to contract terms excluding or　
restricting
　　ility for breach of obligation arising by implication of law from　
the
　　re of the contract.
　　As against a person dealing as consumer, liability in respect　of　
the
　　's correspondence with description or　sample,　or　their　
quality　or
　　ess for any particular purpose, cannot be excluded　or　
restricted　by
　　rence to any such term.
　　As against a person dealing otherwise than as consumer, that
liability
　　be excluded or restricted by reference to such a term, but only
in　so
　　as the term satisfies the requirement of reasonableness.
　　
　　Liability in respect of--
　　the right to transfer ownership of the goods, or give possession;
or
　　the assurance　of　quiet　possession　to　a　person　taking　
goods　in
　　uance of the contract, cannot be excluded or restricted　by　
reference
　　ny such term except in so far as the term satisfies the requirement
of
　　onableness.　[cf. 1977 c. 50 s. 7 U. K.]
　　r provisions about contracts
　　Effect of breach on "reasonableness" test
　　Where for reliance　upon　it　a　contract　term　has　to　
satisfy　the
　　irement of reasonableness, it may be found　to　do　so　and　be　
given
　　ct accordingly notwithstanding that the contract has　been　
terminated
　　er by breach or by a party electing to treat it as repudiated.
　　Where on a breach the contract is nevertheless　affirmed　by　a　
party
　　tled to treat as repudiated, this　does　not　of　itself　
exclude　the
　　irement of reasonableness in relation to any contract term.
　　1977 c. 50 s. 9 U. K.]
　　Evasion by means of secondary contract
　　rson is not bound by any contract　term　prejudicing　or　taking　
away
　　ts of his which arise under, or in connection with the performance
of,
　　her contract, so far as those rights　extend　to　the　
enforcement　of
　　her's　liability　which　this　Ordinance　prevents　that　
other　 from
　　uding or restricting.
　　1977 c. 50 s. 10 U. K.]
　　Arbitration agreements
　　As against a person dealing as consumer, an agreement to submit
future
　　erences to arbitration cannot be enforced except--
　　with his written consent signified after the differences　in　
question
　　arisen; or
　　where he has himself had recourse to arbitration in pursuance　of　
the
　　ement in respect of any differences.
　　Subsection (1) does not affect--
　　the enforcement of an international arbitration agreement　
within　the
　　ing of section 2 (1) of the Arbitration Ordinance (Cap. 341);
　　laced 76 of 1990 s. 2)
　　the resolution of differences arising under any contract so far
as　it
　　by virtue of Schedule 1, excluded from the operation of section
7,　8,
　　12.
　PART III CIRCUMSTANCES WHERE CONTROL DOES NOT APPLY
　　
　　International supply contracts
　　The limits imposed by this Ordinance on the extent to which　a　
person
　　exclude or restrict liability by reference to a contract term　do　
not
　　y to liability arising under an international supply contract.
　　The terms of an international supply contract are not subject　to　
any
　　irement of reasonableness under section 8 or 9.
　　For the purposes of this section,　an　international　supply　
contract
　　s a contract--
　　that is either a contract of sale of goods or a contract under　
or　in
　　uance of which the possession or ownership of goods passes;
　　that is made by parties whose places of business　(or,　if　they　
have
　　, habitual residences) are in the territories of different　
States　or
　　in and outside Hong Kong; and
　　in the case of which--
　　the goods in question are, at　the　time　of　the　conclusion　
of　the
　　ract, in the　course　of　carriage,　or　will　be　carried,　
from　the
　　itory of one State to the territory of another, or　to　or　from　
Hong
　　from or to a place outside Hong Kong; or
　　the acts constituting the offer and acceptance have been done in　
the
　　itories of different States or in and outside Hong Kong; or
　　) the contract provides for the goods to be delivered to the
territory
　　State other than that within whose territory　the　acts　
constituting
　　offer and acceptance were done; or
　　the acts constituting the offer and acceptance were done in Hong
Kong
　　the contract provides for the goods to be delivered outside Hong
Kong;
　　
　　the acts constituting the offer and acceptance were done outside　
Hong
　　and the contract provides for the goods to be delivered to Hong
Kong.
　　1977 c. 50 s. 26 U. K.]
　　Choice of law clauses
　　Where the proper law of a contract is the law of　Hong　Kong　only　
by
　　ce of the parties (and apart from that choice would be the law
of some
　　r country) sections 7 to 12 do not operate as part of the proper
law.
　　This Ordinance has effect　notwithstanding　any　contract　
term　which
　　ies or purports to apply the law of some other country, where　
(either
　　oth)--
　　the term appears to the court　or　arbitrator　to　have　been　
imposed
　　ly or mainly for the purpose of enabling　the　party　imposing　
it　to
　　e the operation of this Ordinance; or
　　in the making of the contract one of the parties　dealt　as　
consumer,
　　he was then habitually resident in Hong Kong, and the essential　

不分页显示　　　总共2页　　1 [2]

　　下一页